ELECTION LAW — Burden of Proof — Non-Compliance with Electoral Act — Burden on Petitioner to Prove Both Non-Compliance and Substantial Effect on Result
Ratio Decidendi
Per Adekeye, JSC, in CPC v. INEC & Ors (2011) NLC-123-426-2011(SC) at pp. 17—18; Paras C—D:
"It is clear from the decided authorities that before a petition can succeed on the ground of non-compliance with the provisions of the Electoral Act; the petitioners must prove not only that there was non-compliance with the provisions of the Electoral Act but that the non-compliance substantially affected the result of the election. In other words, the petitioner has two burdens to prove: (a) That non-compliance took place and (b) That the non-compliance substantially affected the result of the election."
Explanation / Scope
This principle establishes that a petitioner must prove both that non-compliance occurred and that it substantially affected the election result. The principle applies in election petitions. It ensures that both elements are proved. The principle reflects the dual burden on the petitioner. It prevents invalidation without proof of effect. The court must require proof of both. The principle provides guidance on election petitions.